CONCEPTS
Most AI persona tools generate a person from a prompt. Candor doesn’t. Every audience, every persona, and every claim in a report traces back to specific evidence. Here’s what that means in practice and how to read the signals.
A confident-sounding AI persona is dangerous if you can’t tell whether their answer is grounded in real-world evidence or generated from thin air. Confidence without provenance is indistinguishable from confabulation. Candor’s answer is to never present a fact without a tag describing where it came from, and to never claim more confidence than the evidence supports.
This shows up everywhere: every signal in an audience, every field in a persona, every claim in a synthesis report carries a provenance tag.
The strongest tag. The claim cites exactly one specific source — a passage from your uploaded research, a web page, or another concrete artifact. You can click through to see the original. If a persona’s decision rule is tagged grounded, there’s a real document or page that says so.
The claim synthesises across two or more sources. No single citation captures it; the conclusion emerges from the pattern. Still well-supported, just not pinned to one quote. Most belief-memory entries are inferred — beliefs rarely come from a single sentence.
Derived from validated behavioral or population distributions, not from a specific source you can cite. Used when the question is something like “what range of openness is plausible for this audience?” — the answer comes from peer-reviewed personality research, not from a particular interview transcript.
Drawn from a calibrated distribution. The persona’s specific OCEAN values and bias intensities are sampled — each one is a specific value pulled from the calibrated range that defines their archetype. Not arbitrary; the distribution it came from is grounded in research, but the specific value is one realisation among many possible.
An explicit hypothesis with no source backing yet. Marked this way deliberately, not by accident. Candor uses this when a claim is needed to make the persona coherent but the evidence to support it isn’t available. Treat weak-confidence claims as things to test, not things to trust.
A simpler scheme would be has source / no source / made up. The reason Candor uses five is that the difference between calibrated (grounded in scientific distributions) and sampled (a specific value drawn from those distributions) is real and useful. Both are research-backed; neither is a citation. Collapsing them would lose information.
The tags are also colour-coded in the UI so you can scan a persona profile and see at a glance how much of it is citation-grade vs. distribution-derived vs. hypothesis.
Three habits that pay off:
Grounding tells you where a claim came from. It doesn’t tell you whether the source was correct. Web evidence can be wrong. Uploaded research can be incomplete. A grounded persona built from biased sources will reflect that bias. Provenance is a tool for healthy scepticism, not a replacement for it.
Be the first to know when it launches.
No spam. Just a note when Candor is ready. Powered by Highline Beta.